Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Speak for yourself, I'm all three, although I try to keep it quiet.
God, no.
Ever may it remain so.
Who's the "they" here, white man?
Last edited:
Great CRM: 767 uncontained engine fire/tear drop return with CVR/FDR.
- Thread starter ChasenSFO
- Start date
Speak for yourself, I'm all three, although I try to keep it quiet.
God, no.
Ever may it remain so.
Who's the "they" here, white man?
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Dude.
It's a 767, not a turboprop or light jet. Maybe it's time to slow your roll and realize that you don't have the background to sit here and tell us how you'd do it in an airplane that doesn't require immediate action at 200' to secure the engine.
Hell, if you pull the wrong engine to idle in a Beechjet, you push it back up without much loss of momentum. Do the same at 200' in a V2+15 climb, in a jet that weighs 410,000 lbs, and you may run the airplane clear out of energy. We utilize these procedures because they're safer than winging it and getting it wrong.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Boris:
Show a little bit of intelligence and just admit that you lost this debate; that you are wrong; and that you will go away and think about what has been said here by multiple professional airline pilots. That is about the only way you are going to save yourself at this point. Otherwise you're just digging a deeper and deeper hole.
TP
Show a little bit of intelligence and just admit that you lost this debate; that you are wrong; and that you will go away and think about what has been said here by multiple professional airline pilots. That is about the only way you are going to save yourself at this point. Otherwise you're just digging a deeper and deeper hole.
TP
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Roll totally slowed. But I don't think I was telling anyone how to do it...I have no idea, and I think I made that clear. This isn't about me having one idea of how to do it, and someone(s) else having another idea. I was responding to the criticism of what the dudes who were there, at the time, did, which resulted in a safe landing. The notion isn't that I know what should have been done...far from it. The notion was that I don't know, and you don't, either.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Save myself from what, exactly?
I should add that I don't think, myself, that anyone has ever "lost" a debate. That's why we still talk.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Well, I do train for this scenario every 6 months, so that does mean something. Knock on wood, I won't deal with it in real life (I put my faith in 'murica and General Electric).
But, I can tell you from personal experience how close that red shaker tape gets while cleaning up and accelerating even with two engines (500 fpm climb with both running isn't unheard of). Single-engine, you'd better fly that airplane first; you'd be working hard just to maintain altitude while you're accelerating.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
So then why are you so ready to pillory these guys? I genuinely don't get it. Everyone reacts differently to a bad situation, and they don't happen when you're primed and ready, sitting in some box on stilts. These dudes got handed a poop sandwich that almost no one ever gets a bite of, and they managed not to swallow it, but the topic du jour is how badly they handled it, discussed exclusively by people who have never had it happen to them (because, near as I can tell, that's every other human being that has ever lived)? No, sorry, I don't think I need a type rating to find that ridiculous and sort of appalling. And possibly lacking in human charity...and maybe even self-impressed and ludicrous. *shrug*
I mean, really. These guys are cowboy yokels who "got lucky", but the Asiana guys are paragons of virtue who were let down by The System? Is it freaking opposite day? Did I wake up in Negativland?
I mean, really. These guys are cowboy yokels who "got lucky", but the Asiana guys are paragons of virtue who were let down by The System? Is it freaking opposite day? Did I wake up in Negativland?
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
I do not think anyone's intent here was to "pillory" these guys. The initial comment in the thread was this was a great example of CRM. There are a lot of low time pilots on this board. Speaking for myself, the point I really wanted to get across is that this was not great CRM nor was it a good example of how to handle that situation in an airliner.
You keep defending them purely based on the fact that they were able to land after the event. Many of us are trying to state that how you get back on the ground while staying well within the boundaries of safety is just as, if not more important, than just getting back on the ground in one piece. They handled this situation in a way that reduced the safety margin to unacceptable levels as seen by today's standards and procedures.
Everyone should not react differently to a bad situation, in this case an engine fire on takeoff. They should react as they were trained to react and follow proper procedures. I guarantee you they did not follow Boeing's procedures for securing an engine fire after takeoff in a B767.
Typhoonpilot
P.S. How do you know none of us have had to shut an engine down after takeoff and return/divert to land? Speaking for myself, I have.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
These guys took on a lot of unnecessary risk. They managed not to crash, so that's good. A good result this one time doesn't mean it's okay to start doing it that way from now on.
Not sure where you're getting all this about Asiana; they obviously were poor airmen who didn't know their machine.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Wow, me too! We should start a club. Of course, mine wasn't ON FIRE after blowing both bottles. In fact, mine wasn't on fire at all. How 'bout yours?
I'm not sure what more can usefully be said, here. I just find it amusing that everyone and his brother is ready to explain precisely how everything these guys did was "unsafe" (with the sad caveat that no one died...must be frustrating). Then turn a few pages over and people are explaining that, you know, it's not really anyone's fault that a PC-12 landed gear up with two presumably sentient humans sitting in the cockpit, or that three ATPs couldn't manage to hit the runway instead of the seawall. Again, *shrug*. We must always be ships in the night, fellow humans.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Because "safe" is far more than the outcome. "Safe" is how much risk you assumed in the process.
It is not frustrating that the outcome was okay in this instance, because we understand that the outcome is irrelevant in terms of a discussion on safety. Obviously for the people on board the fact that they didn't die is relevant, but for those of us discussing the event and trying to learn from it, whether they ended up a smoking hole or not is completely irrelevant. We can look at the flight, and see that the risk assumed was far higher than acceptable by today's standards. That's unsafe.
Your mindset is not only backward, it leads to accidents. People who think like you crash airplanes. We try to educate people like you because airlines have no room for people who say during a Critical Incident Review, "What's the problem? I got it on the ground and everyone lived."
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what safety is. Safety is a measurement of the likelihood of having a positive outcome. Just because you DO have a positive outcome doesn't mean you came to that positive outcome safely. If you were to get rip roaring drunk, drive down an interstate going the wrong direction, at 120 MPH, and managed to not hit anybody, you didn't dive drunkenly safely. You operated a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and were LUCKY to have a positive outcome.
This is no different.
This is no different.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
No, I get. I mean, I'm slow, but God knows you've been saying it enough. The fundamental misunderstanding is that you think that measuring likelihoods in dynamic events with an unfathomable number of variables is some kind of obvious and discrete process, and just sort of cock your head sideways and repeat "No, no, see, SAFETY" when confronted with the fact that, you know, it clearly isn't, and that your suppositions on the subject carry the same weight as anyone else's.
Wha...drunk driving? Ok, nothing ludicrous here!
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Nothing ludicrous? Shutting down an engine on your own after pressing through with a takeoff with an engine fire prior to v1 shows the same lack of decision making that goes into getting behind the wheel drunk.
Or colloquially, you can't fix stupid.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
You act as if we have made all of this up on our own, or as if there aren't people who dedicate their careers to researching the very data and variables that you think aren't quantifiable.
And our suppositions on the subject do carry more weight that those with no safety experience. You have no idea about the experience that many on this site have. There are several of us with actual accident/incident investigations under our belts, NTSB training, and various other Safety experience such as FOQA or ASAP analysts, etc. We are speaking as authorities on the subject.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Yes, you keep saying that.
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
Boris, I'm willing to bet you won't see a single 121 pilot on this forum that agrees with how this scenario went down. 121 also has the best safety record out there. I'm thinking it isn't a coincidence.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
However, we are oil to Part 135's water.... "trained monkeys", "can't think outside the box", etc. So it's not likely that corporate aviation will agree with the method with which 121 achieves and maintains its safety record.